this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
484 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

59086 readers
3311 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Accepting it is what makes it good business. We stop accepting it, it costs money and then it's no longer good business.

Business is purely profit driven. We need to make morally wrong things costly. Orders of magnitude more costly than doing the right thing.

Blame the ayer AND fix the game.

[–] Paradachshund@lemmy.today 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While I definitely agree with parts of this, that making it costly to do amoral things would be good, I have to say that the rest is exactly what I'm calling out. By saying that profit is the only goal of business, and that being purely profit-driven is an amoral position, we give the greedy and amoral a tremendous free pass. We blame the victims, consumers, because they continue to support these greedy people with their money, when we should be holding the greedy fully accountable. They are the problem and existing purely for greed is not an amoral state of being. It is quite the opposite, and that is what we must no longer accept.

No offense to you, I don't think you mean any harm by your comment, but it served as a good example of the mindset I am trying to address.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your mistake is to assign any portion of the action to a corporation. They are a legal entity, sure, but they are an empty vessel. They don't have morals or choice or a conscience. People do. The people doing amoral things are incentivised to do so. They make only a part of the corporation. That's the point. To act as a collective, and as a shield.

Remove the incentive for the individuals and for the entity and the problem disappears. It's not the fault of consumers. It's a fault of the system. Change the system. Consumers can play a part in that, but that doesn't make them to blame.

[–] Paradachshund@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am aiming my criticism at the individuals, so we agree on that. I would also love to see the incentives change, but no offense, that's a hand wave. There's nothing actionable in what you said. Standing up and saying no more is action, and something we can accomplish as individuals. Change comes from people, not from systems. Systems can only change once the people change.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“No more” is also a hand wave, lol.

I’m saying change the incentives. That means fines in multiples of the potential profit. I’m saying fines for individuals, not just companies.

I’m saying put the bad actors out of business with the fines. So the other companies are incentivised not to do it, or they die.

I’m saying stand up and say no, so it’s a pr nightmare and loss for companies to encroach on our privacies and rights. I’m saying fines for data breaches. Fines for misusing data. Fines for using our likeness.

[–] Paradachshund@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All I can say is I really agree with your vision, and while I don't see a path to get there in the current system, especially as individuals, I hope we can.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Fingers crossed. In the technology space, the path for profitability seems to be to restrict competition and competitor traction.

Facebook, Google et Al don't produce a physical product. There is no reason they should be "sticky" as they are. It's on purpose. They design their products to make it hard to switch from habit and dopamine fixes rather than quality of product. That manipulation should be punishable.

I think freedom of movement of data should be a requirement. Including using open standards.

We should also have open information. Companies know how much they made in advertising off users. Users should be aware. It might be eye opening and make more people question the service.